A study into patient understanding of blood tests ordered by their doctor

Background

Patient understanding of diagnostic
tests is important in general practice.
This study describes how patients
understand information about their
tests, using blood tests as an example.

Methods

A survey of patients attending two
hospital blood collection centres in
Canberra in the Australian Capital
Territory.

Results

An 89% response rate (n=135): 90%
of patients understood the reasons
for tests but only 19% could name
them; 86% reported that their doctor
explained their tests and 89% reported
they understood their doctor’s
explanation. Doctors offered 35% of
patients a copy of test results. Patients
who knew their general practitioner
were more aware of preparations
needed for undertaking blood tests
(p<0.001). Thirty-six percent would
seek information from the people
working at blood collection centres.

Discussion

Patients understood the reasons blood
tests were ordered, although only
a few could name them. A strong
relationship was found between
doctors explaining blood tests and
patients understanding the reasons
for tests. Nevertheless, information
sharing was at a low level.

A functional patient-doctor dialogue is at the core of diagnostic decision making in general practice.1 Patients are active in this dialogue by expecting their general practitioner to explain the purpose of diagnostic tests.2 Studies show that such explanations satisfy patients’ expectations of what doctors should do in relation to diagnostic tests and perceived omissions can lead to decreased patient satisfaction.2–5 Patient beliefs and attitudes toward diagnostic tests are important in all aspects of general practice. A request for diagnostic tests by a patient can be both pervasive and influential. For example, GPs found consultations with new patients challenging when the patients were specific in their request for diagnostic tests.6 Such patients were quite likely to receive them.

Information theory defines information as the reduction of uncertainty between the receiver and the source.7 In the context of this theory, a doctor is defined as the source of information and the patient the receiver of information. This theory is useful in that it provides a testable definition of a patient as a receiver of information. In the context of blood testing, the patient is defined as being informed once their uncertainty about the test has been allayed. Furthermore, the theory provides a testable definition of a doctor as a source of information. In the context of blood testing, the doctor explains the test to the patient before the patient goes to the blood collection centre or gives the patient a copy of the test result once obtained from the centre. In both instances, the doctor is defined as behaving as a source of information for the patient.

Previous studies show that patients prefer to receive information about all test results.8 A case of a doctor failing to ensure that a patient received test information on time9 appears to have influenced the advice in The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Standards for general practices on how patients should receive information on tests.1 Such advice does not refer to any research on how patients are offered or receive information about tests.

This study aims to describe how patients report their understanding of information about blood tests. It describes how patients report doctors offering information about blood tests and how patients seek, receive and worry about the information contained in their tests. The study tests two null hypotheses: there is no relationship between doctors explaining blood tests to patients and patients’ understanding of those tests; and there is no relationship between doctors offering a copy of test results and patients’ interest in receiving the copy.

Method

The study took place at one pathology collection centre at a public hospital and one privately funded collection centre in a private hospital in Canberra (Australian Capital Territory). These sites were chosen based on an estimated medium level of patient flow (between 20 and 40 patients an hour). The data collection occurred over 10 sessions on Wednesday or Friday mornings between 07.30 hours and 11.00 hours at the two sites

All patients over 18 years of age entering the collection centres for blood tests were recruited by one of the research assistants at the time patients had their blood collected. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. A 21-question survey collected data on patient demographics, the names of tests requested, understanding of the meaning of the tests requested, what information had been given to the patient by the doctor and by the people working in the collection centre, and the patient’s worry about the test results.

Definition of uncertainty

In this study, patients were defined as having reduced their uncertainty about blood tests in two ways. The first was patients reporting their doctor had explained their blood test and they understood the reason for the test. The second was patients reporting being offered a copy of the test results by their doctor, and that they were interested in receiving the copy.

Analysis of data was undertaken through IBMTM SPSS Statistics 19.0 and compared differences between categories using the Pearson chi-square test (with continuity correction) where appropriate. Ethical approval was obtained from the Australian National University Human Ethics Committee and the ACT Health Human Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Of the 152 people approached, 135 responded (89%). Eight males and nine females refused to participate. Table 1 shows the characteristics of patients, the number of times they visited clinics, and the type and frequency of blood tests ordered. Younger patients were more likely to visit their clinical practice once compared to older patients who visited more than once (mean age 42.6 vs 53.8 years, t-test = –2.779, p=0.011).

Table 1. Characteristics of surveyed patients

Characteristics of patients

Mean age (SD)

52.4

(16.6)

Male

68

50%

Patient knowledge of the doctor who ordered the blood test

Did not know the doctor

12

9%

The doctor was a GP

57

42%

The doctor was a specialist

66

49%

Number of times patient visited the clinical practice (or hospital) where the doctor ordered their blood test

Once

17

13%

More than once

118

87%

Characteristics of blood tests

Haematology

93

69%

Biochemistry

119

89%

Other

77

57%

Frequency of previous blood tests

First blood test ever

0

0%

Regularly

– 1–2 weekly

23

17%

– 1 monthly

14

10%

– 3 monthly

19

14%

– 6 monthly

15

11%

– Yearly

10

7%

Irregularly

54

40%

Patient understanding and the doctor’s explanation of blood tests

When asked, 90% of patients (n=122) reported they understood the reasons for blood tests ordered by their doctor for that day, but only 26 (19%) patients could name all their tests, 59 (44%) could name some and 50 (37%) were unable to name any test (chi-square = 24.445, df=2, p<0.001). Most patients (n=116, 86%) reported the doctor had explained what the tests were for and most (n=120, 89%) reported they understood the doctor explaining the meaning of tests.

The doctor offering and patients receiving information about test results

More patients who had been offered a copy of the test result by their doctor were interested in receiving a copy of their results compared to patients who had not been offered a copy by their doctor (89% offered vs 43% not offered, chi-square = 24.493, df=1, p<0.001). Doctors were more likely to offer a copy of results to patients who had regular blood tests compared to patients who had tests irregularly (75% vs 25%, chi-square = 5.398, df=1, p=0.020). Furthermore, more patients were offered a copy of the results when they knew the specialist (n=28, 60%) who ordered the test compared to those who knew the GP (n=13, 28%) ordering the test or not knowing the doctor (n=6, 13%) ordering the test (chi-square = 6.525, df=2, p=0.038).

Many patients (n=88, 65%) had received information about the blood test because they were aware of the preparation needed for undertaking the blood test (eg. the need for fasting) either by having this explained by their doctor (n=54, 61%), or the patients knew themselves (n=22, 25%), or they were told by the collection centre (n=12, 14%), or they were told by other people (n=4, 5%). Furthermore, more patients were aware of the preparations when they knew the GP (n=47, 53%) ordering the test compared to knowing the specialist (n=32, 36%) who ordered the test or not knowing the doctor (n=9, 10%) ordering the test (chi-square = 16.638, df=2, p<0.001).

Patients seeking information

Some patients (n=49, 36%) would seek information by asking the people working at the blood collection centres about tests being done that day. Females were more likely to seek further information at the centres than males (31% vs 19%, chi-square = 4.868, df=1, p=0.027); as were patients who knew the GP (n=47, 53%) who had ordered the test compared to knowing the specialist (n=32, 36%) ordering the test, or not knowing the doctor (n=9, 10%) ordering the test (chi-square = 16.638, df=2, p<0.001).

A quarter of patients (n=32, 24%) would prefer that there was more information about blood tests available at the blood collection centres.

Patient worry about test results

Among the 15 patients (12%) worried about their test results, 12 (80%) reported their doctor knew they were worried. Patients worried about their test results were more likely to seek information at the blood collection centres than patients who were not worried (20% vs 6%, chi-square = 4.513, df=1, p=0.0314).

Discussion

This study found 90% of patients reported they understood the reasons for ordering blood tests, although only 19% could name all their tests. The study rejected the first null hypothesis by finding a strong relationship between the doctor explaining blood tests and patients understanding them. Further evidence supporting this hypothesis was finding that most patients who understood the preparation needed for undertaking a blood test had the preparation explained to them by their doctor.

The study could not reject the second null hypothesis because of the low level of information sharing – only 34% of patients reported their doctor had offered them a copy of their test results. The remaining 66% of patients were not offered a copy and therefore decreasing the chances of their uncertainties being allayed. In-depth qualitative studies are required to measure the level of uncertainty in patients who have not been offered copies of their blood test results. Information sharing has been shown to correlate with increased patient satisfaction and with improved health outcomes.4,10–13 Qualitative studies show that patients prefer to be notified about all test results, including normal results.14 In this study, patients were more likely to be offered information if they had prior experience of regular blood tests and the majority of these patients were interested in receiving a copy of their test results.

Patients’ knowledge of the type of doctor who had ordered a test was variably related to the knowledge they had about their tests in two ways. First, patients were more aware of the preparation needed for undertaking a blood test when they knew the GP who had ordered the test compared to knowing the specialist. Second, patients were more likely to be offered information at the blood collection centres when they knew the specialist who had ordered the test compared to knowing the GP. More research is needed on the dialogue occurring in consultations to identify how patients knowledge of their doctor might reduce the uncertainty patients have about tests.

Gender and patient worry about test results were the only patient characteristics found to have a significant relationship to how patients sought information on blood tests. Females were more likely to seek further information at the blood collection centres. A result consistent with other studies showing females have more of a role in decision making and active participation in healthcare than males.3,15,16 Second, the minority of patients (12%) worried about their test result are more likely to seek further information at the blood collection centres compared to the majority who were not worried. Community studies show that worry is a major driver for people to use health services in primary care.17 Qualitative studies show that patients prefer to be notified about test results from a knowledgeable source who can give personalised information.14 More research is needed on how the personal characteristics of patients can influence information seeking behaviour in general practice.

Key points

Patients report they understand the reasons blood tests are ordered, although only a few could name all their tests.

A strong relationship was found between patients reporting their doctor had explained their blood tests and patients understanding the reasons for tests.

A low level of information sharing was reported with only a third of patients reporting their doctor had offered them a copy of their test results.

Information sharing was more likely among patients who had regular blood tests and patients who knew their specialist.

Patients who knew their GP were more aware of preparations needed for undertaking blood tests.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Standards for general practices. South Melbourne: The RACGP, 2010.

Downloads

Help with downloads

Opening or saving files

Files on the website can be opened or downloaded and saved to your computer or device.

To open click on the link, your computer or device will try and open the file using compatible software.

To save the file right click or option-click the link and choose "Save As...". Follow the prompts to chose a location.

Types of file

PDF Most of the documents on the RACGP website are in Portable Document Format (PDF). These files will have "PDF" in brackets along with the filesize of the download. To open a PDF file you will need compatible software such as Adobe Reader. If you do not have it you can download Adobe Reader free of charge.

DOC Some documents on this site are in Microsoft Word format. These will have "DOC" in brackets along with the filesize of the download. To view these documents you will need software that can read Microsoft Word format. If you don't have anything you can download the MS Word Viewer free of charge.

Downloads

Help with downloads

Opening or saving files

Files on the website can be opened or downloaded and saved to your computer or device.

To open click on the link, your computer or device will try and open the file using compatible software.

To save the file right click or option-click the link and choose "Save As...". Follow the prompts to chose a location.

Types of file

PDF Most of the documents on the RACGP website are in Portable Document Format (PDF). These files will have "PDF" in brackets along with the filesize of the download. To open a PDF file you will need compatible software such as Adobe Reader. If you do not have it you can download Adobe Reader free of charge.

DOC Some documents on this site are in Microsoft Word format. These will have "DOC" in brackets along with the filesize of the download. To view these documents you will need software that can read Microsoft Word format. If you don't have anything you can download the MS Word Viewer free of charge.

Australian Family Physician (incorporating Annals of General Practice)
is published by The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners,
100 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australiaafp@racgp.org.au

The views expressed by the authors of articles in Australian Family Physician are their own and not
necessarily those of the publisher or the editorial staff, and must not be quoted as such. Every care is
taken to reproduce articles accurately, but the publisher accepts no responsibility for errors, omissions or
inaccuracies contained therein or for the consequences of any action taken by any person as a result of
anything contained in this publication. The content of any advertising or promotional material contained
within, or mailed with, Australian Family Physician is not necessarily endorsed by the publisher.